After reading the article I would like you to post your thoughts and comments to it here for us to read and discuss. I would like you to address the following items in your comments:
1. What is your general reaction to this article? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have questions or comments. Essentially, just react to the article.
2. Find an example of something that is considered pseudoscience and, using the article, explain as to why it is considered such by most people. Do you agree with this assessment?
Place your comments in the space below in alphabetical order (last name first) following the format shown with my example. Feel free to comment on other people's comments but just be sure to use a different color font and sign your name after your comment(s).
Billig, Marielle
1. People should definitely be aware of pseudoscience because often times, since it is masquerading as 'real' science, it can be very misleading. Legitimate science is based on testable hypotheses and repeatable outcomes. It drives scientists to make more discoveries because inconsistencies in results can lead to more questions, then hypotheses and etc. However, pseudoscience only deals with what people want to be true or speculate to be true.
2. The area of ghost hunting is a pseudoscience. The ghost hunters use all sorts of gadgets to try and communicate with or locate the spirits. However, there is no evidence that even if there was a ghost present that they would be giving off electro-magnetic radiation or creating bizarre changes in temperature as many in the field speculate. Nearly anything can be attributed to the presence of ghosts. Instead of investigating the ways their theories can be disprooved, only certain outcomes are persued and some information is disregarded or manipulated to conform to the hypothesis.
Blank, Andrew
1. Indeed, the general population should be aware of the distinctions that can be made between science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience can often be falsely advertised. Caveat emptor should definitely be employed because it can often be tough to tell what one is receiving. Since science is a set of methods aimed at testing hypotheses and building theories, it is progressive and is often open to new advances in its respective areas. However, pseudoscience tends to be reactionary in nature. It is highly unprogressive.
2. Intelligent design is a pseudoscience. It uses religious principles and doesn't use the scientific method to explain phenomena. It attempts to redefine science to allow for some sort of supernatural explanation. No one has observed any evidence that supports intelligent design while natural selection is thoroughly supported by solid evidence such as fossils.
Bondy, Matthew
1. I tended to agree with most of the claims made by the author of this article. Pseudoscience is a very interesting thing, but I’m still a little bit unclear about the how something goes from a pseudoscience to mainstream science. Tommy alluded to the Flat Earth. After all, things that are now readily accepted in the scientific community were in the past thought to be ludicrous notions. Some things, however, are blatantly pseudoscience and consumers should be well aware. Without preserving science as a rational thing, its practical applications become less impactful.
2. I was somewhat surprised that “alternative medicine”, acupuncture, etc. are so made fun of by scientists. It was listed in the article as an example of “pseudoscience”. It could be considered so because, say, Western medication is tested using the scientific method in a lab, whereas these holistic forms of healing are a combination of science, tradition, and sometimes less accepted data or just ideas. I have a bias because my mom works at what is arguably an “alternative medicine” place. The fact is, however, that people have been told by their more “real” doctors that nothing could be done, the patient then turned to alternative medicine, became healthier, and the “traditional” doctors had no explanation. This is not some fluke—this has happened many, many times—including cancer cases. Even alternative medicine experts would argue that this has a lot to do with the subconscious mind. I don’t have a side-by side study to prove whether or not alternative medicine is valid (or when it is valid), but my question is if alternative medicine works in some cases when Western medicine sometimes fails, why knock it so much, even if it’s not “proven” to the extent other treatments are? This is when I think people take the negative connotations of “pseudoscience” too far and miss the more practical point. And isn’t being practical what science should be about? (That’s debatable… just a thought.)
Center, Shoshi
1. Overall I agree with the article's "definition" of pseudoscience, and if ideas don't contribute anything to scientists, produce new lines of research, or influencing hypothesis or models, it is most likely pseudoscience. Many scientists don't believe in pseudoscience because it isn't based off of legitimate data. But in a way all science is just an individual's interpretation, and just like the Greeks used myths to explain the "unexplainable", people use pseudoscience to make sense of things that cannot be tested or proven with today's technology. As time goes on some pseudosciences may become science as technological advances allow testing of these ideas. But as of right now many of these ideas are the best way to explain the things that go on in our world, and as long as people have reason to make sense of these theories, they will be considered a part of the scientific world.
2. The Bermuda Triangle can be considered a pseudoscience because there have been a number of ship and aircraft disasters, as well as disappearances in the Bermuda-Puerto Rico-Florida region that occurred to a certain degree that stories began circulating about E.T. and paranormal encounters in that area. No one who has gone through the Bermuda Triangle and personally experienced anything out of the ordinary has never returned to verify it, but there are still many who believe in this phenomenon. And even if a person were to claim that he/she personally experienced something, we have no evidence to prove any of these claims, nor do we have a way of disproving them, thus making The Bermuda Triangle phenomenon unfalsifiable. In the end it all depends on what a person chooses to believe and what makes sense in their eyes, bringing up the idea once again that pseudoscience is just an person's own interpretation and judgment of what makes sense in the world.
Chin, Jeremy
1. I agree with the article to as certain degree. I totally agree that science should be useful and have a concrete basis on which a hypothesis is formed, but some pseudoscience lies on the edge. I also think that science is just the human interpretation of the world. We are finding answers to unexplainable events in nature. In the same way, pseudoscience is finding explanations for strange things. The only difference is, other scientists don't think they are legitimate because of the lack of facts or experimental data, but pseudoscience has the same basic concept of science. It's only a matter of time before we have the technology and resources to find out more about these pseudosciences and maybe even induct them into the field of actual science.
2. A great example of pseudoscience is paranormal hunting/research. For a long time now, "scientists" have gone searching for ghosts and paranormal energy by using strange and unconventional methods of science to find answers to these phenomena. This field is considered pseudoscience because almost every other scientist not in this field strongly opposes this idea. According to Popper, pseudoscience is not useful and doesn't contribute to further research in science. Moreover, these "discoveries" of supernatural beings can bring absolutely no further fields of research or interests. Most of these ghost hunts have been staged for entertainment, or just random hypothesis and coincidental closing of doors, sounds coming from the corner of the room, or strange voices coming from "ghosts" (really just hearing problems with the ghost hunters themselves). Lastly, ghost hunting has no real hypothesis or data to work off of. There is only the possibility of there being a paranormal being, and pseudoscientist are just trying to prove it, when really, there is no way to with the science we have today. We can conclude that ghost hunting is just a sham that pseudoscientists want to believe so they can excite people and prove other scientists wrong.
Coleman, Matt
1. Overall, I felt that this article made some strong points to demonstrate that pseudoscience needs to be useless in a way that no further scientific developments can result from it. However, it is nearly impossible to establish a boundary between science and pseudoscience. Sometimes discoveries originally thought to be pseudoscience can be either proved or disproved with the rapid growth of technological advancements. The determination of what category some discoveries fall in to is open to interpretation. Differentiating between science and pseudoscience will most likely never be completely agreed upon, but whether right or wrong, they both try to explain our universe.
2. An example of something considered to be pseudoscience by most people would be ufology, or the study of unidentified flying objects. No concrete data suggests that UFOs have landed on Earth. Many people have claimed to have seen them, and some think that they even have their own pictures of UFOs. But I, along with plenty of others, think that ufology is pseudoscience. There is no definitive evidence that proves any of the theories that suggest the existence of UFOs, and it is probable that stories of sightings are either scams or misidentification of a different object. Almost no information about UFOs has been concluded despite the fact that studies have been going on for countless years. There is always a chance that UFOs exist, but because the claims remain unproven, ufology falls into the category of pseudoscience. Area 51? (Dylan)
Crowe, Samantha
1. In general, I agree with the boundaries that Shermer sets for science and pseudoscience, trying to take personal beliefs out of the equation. However, it seems that no matter what the boundaries are set, people still have their own opinions. Like Popper wrote, ” No one in the history of the world has ever self-identified as a pseudoscientist.” Ghost hunters will still look for signs of paranormal activity, and acupuncturists will still continue their practice. And there are always gray areas. I do agree with Shermer that opinions shouldn’t be part of the decision; however there still needs to be a more concrete way to decide, maybe a law. However, that doesn’t mean that pseudoscience will always stay a pseudoscience. Scientists and pseudoscientists alike should research pseudoscience because maybe there is a truth that could lead to a better scientific community.
2. A huge topic of what is considered pseudoscience and has been researched a lot in the past century is acupuncture. Just the definition of acupuncture would have Shermer calling it a pseudoscience. Acupuncture came to be way back in ancient China; its use for propelling of qi was and is used to relieve pain and nausea. As an alternate form of medicine, it is based on old medicinal beliefs of China, unrelated to modern science. The benefits of acupuncture are often attributed to the placebo effect and bias. However people still continue the practice, and there are certain qualifications for acupuncturists for safety. As far as I can see, acupuncture is a pseudoscience, but there seems to be a lot research yet to be done. More research should be done not only to see if is there is truth to acupuncture but if there is anything to acupuncture, science or fraud. The WHO believes acupuncture helps several conditions. I'm not sure why. I think the body sends extra repair materials to the needle site which are then used in other places. I just found this, but it might not be true (Tommy) Always consider the source. The link you shared Tommy was written by acupuncture advocates making it difficult to know how much is science and how much is advertising. (M. Grdinic)
Ekenberg, Dylan
1. I agree with the articles main point, nothing can be fully tested to the point were everyone believes it true. A prime example of this is the argument of Fate vs. Free Will. Nothing can be tested at all to prove whether you control your life or it is already mapped out. But, people still jump on a side of fate vs. free will even though that it can't be proven to a point where one is true. This is what I think about pseudosciences, even though they can't be fully proven to a point where it is right of wrong, people still have their believes in whether it works or not.
2. An example of pseudoscience is people who are psychics, it has no real evidence that it is true, it usually has to do with con artists, and people have their views whether it works or not. In my opinion it is a scam to get your money. But, after looking online, people say that they have gotten results and things that they have foretold has come true. But, that comes to the point whether or not they are legit. People online are saying that there are real psychics but also I found a guide called, how to be a psychic and scam people out of there money. After reading over, they are trying to sell hope, and the main way they do it is get some inside information that they keep private and that they bring out and to think they are true to try and think that they saw something from the beyond that they wouldn't know.
Grdinic, Marcel
1. I believe that this article raises some interesting philosophical questions about the nature of science. Trying to determine what is and is not science really can be a tricky question. I like the falsifiable criteria suggested by Karl Popper and how if something is immune to being proven false than it most likely a pseudoscience. But there are problems with this approach as just because we can't prove it false now doesn't mean we will always be in that situation. However, some issues do seem to be intuitively unscientific now and forever.
2. Chiropractic medicine is one area of alternative medicine that is classified as a pseudoscience. This treatment approach was created by a grocery store owner in the late 1800s who claimed that all of the diseases of man are the result of misalignments and so-called subluxations in the spine. However, modern controlled experiments have shown that there is no basis to this theory and that in many cases chiropractors do much more harm than good. Most studies show that the only thing chiropractors can help with is a specific type of low back pain. But even here the chiropractic treatment was no more effective than those in a study who received massage therapy and even those who were just given an informational packet on stretching. Why people continue to spend large amounts of money on an unsubstantiated claim is confusing to me. I think the reason for this is that stories are spread about how chiropractic treatment worked well for one person, and other people jump on the bandwagon. A lot of alternitive medicines are probably just the placebo effect. (Kevin R.) Good point Kevin. This is actually a well documented phenomenon: the mere act of "laying hands" upon someone with pain leads them to believe that it is helping them. The placebo effect is important but it shouldn't be the only effect of a treatment. (M. Grdinic)
Homedi, Nadia
1. I generally do agree with the way pseudoscience and the way we can differentiate pseudoscience, non-science, and science, was explained in the article. The main idea that was conveyed from Shermer throughout the article and that i believe in strongly, is that it is incorrect to assume a hypothesis is true unless it can be tested and proved. This is why it is called a hypothesis. However, everyone will have their own opinions and try to find fault in theories. I think that most of his criteria for pseudoscience is correct, but once again: how can you set a definition for pseudoscience when it is unsure what the boundaries for pseudoscience actually are? The person who is trying to define it should be prepared to add or take away criteria because as science evolves, so do its definitions. Which brings up the question: can science and scientific terms ever be defined? I do not agree that all pseudoscience will not lead to new discoveries. Some pseudoscience may connect with history. In some cases, pseudoscience can help to connect events from the past and make present scientific situations more clear, such as the technological situation of the scientist when he/she were conducting their experiment, or why they did it that way. Their beliefs could have influenced their way of conducting experiments.
2. Religious belief is an example of pseudoscience. Religion cannot be proven through conducting experiments. This contradicts the idea that science is meant to test and prove theories. Religion is always changing, based on beliefs of certain people, and will never be agreed upon. Religion has become a worldwide conflict. Which is the same as pseudoscience where anything under this category cannot be agreed upon by scientists. Also, religion can confuse proven scientific theorems and concepts, which is why we don't incorporate it in public schools. Scientific theories must help research, help to improve the scientific community as a whole, and influence existing hypothesis. Religion does the opposite, which is why it isn't incorporated throughout science, yet categorized as pseudoscience.
Gruemmer, Nolan
1. I agreed for the most part with Shermer's classifications of science and pseudoscience. I very strongly agree with the "falsifiable" criteria, as when I think of examples of pseudoscience such as acupuncture and homeopathic medicine, it seems to apply. The possibility for science to be proven false and replaced is in fact the very basis of the scientific method, and necessary for building a concrete and accurate base of knowledge.
2. One example of pseudoscience is astrology, a belief system in a relationship between astronomical phenomenae and worldly events. Horoscopes are a part of astrology. As horoscopes are almost always supremely vague, they could pretty much always fit some way into a situation and are therefore impossible to be proven wrong (you could easily say they are meant to be this way). So astrology is not falsifiable. Astrology also lacking any meaningful relationship to other bases of knowledge, and conjures up relationships between arguably completely separate events without any scientific reasoning whatsoever.
Jancaus, Kathryn
1. I thought that Shermer’s criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience were reasonable. He introduces the idea that true science is a test of a hypothesis and changes current theories or creates new opportunities for research and discovery. I agree that pseudoscience usually doesn’t experimentally test a hypothesis, but I wondered about Shermer’s approach to one question: does the revolutionary new idea produce any new research or discoveries, or change a current theory? He stated that if the idea doesn’t do this, it is probably pseudoscience. Would Shermer say that an idea or discovery has to be new and revolutionary in order for it to be considered science? It would seem that if this was true, it wouldn’t be considered science if someone did an experiment and another person did the same experiment a hundred years later with the same results. I think that the point of this classification between science and pseudoscience is that all science was new at first, and if it caused new discoveries or changes of worldview once (and the results of the experiment don’t change) it can still be considered science in the future. This explains why many of the experiments we do in science class are still considered science even though we aren’t the first to do them. When they (or experiments like them) were first done, they led to new lines of study and changed people’s mindset. And for many of them, it can also be said that they lead us, as learners of scientific knowledge already gained by others, into discoveries and changes of perspective just like the first scientists to do them experienced.
2. An example of pseudoscience is the “study” of mythical creatures, what some people call cryptozoology. Some people claim that creatures like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and yetis exist, but the study of these creatures can be considered pseudoscience because it doesn’t use hypothesis and reasonable, evidence-based theories to foster new discoveries. Most people believe that there just isn’t enough evidence of creatures like this to produce useful scientific knowledge, as Shermer’s article would put it. I agree that the study of mythical creatures is pseudoscience because it hasn’t led to scientific discoveries or credible research.
Kang, Edward
1. I agree that many things can be considered "pseudoscience". We don't know what we know until we can prove it. The Greeks believed in many myths which at the time were as factual as the speed of light, and even that has been broken by neutrinos apparently. If anyone can be proven wrong, nobody is completely right. It takes time for technology and men to be able to prove or disprove things, Science that has remained true for a long time can be considered "science", as there would have to be a very strongly supported way to prove a theory pertaining to biology or some other well-understood topic.
2. ESP is considered pseudoscience because nobody can prove that someone can sense things with their mind. People believe it because the ESP "users" are usually very good at playing tricks and pretending to recieve information. There are theories and weird people that can do weird things, but citing Popper, "
If a community of scientists actively adopts a new idea and if that idea then spreads through the field and is incorporated into research that produces useful knowledge reflected in presentations, publications, and especially new lines of inquiry and research, chances are it is science.". This clearly shows that this is not a science as it is dismissed by nearly all scientists, as there is not a solid basis by which anyone can test this hypothesis that people can "receive" information. It doesn't even make sense, as mutants only exists in comics.
Kaplan, Alex
1. I generally agree with Shermer’s ideas on pseudoscience. Distinguishing between pseudoscience and proven scientific theories is definitely necessary, especially for high-school chemistry students. I do not believe, however, that Shermer accurately depicted the grounds for determining “pseudoscience.” Just because a theory has not yet been proven (such as alternative medicine), does not mean that it is actually pseudoscience. This issue was touched on in the article, but I wish that Shermer had elaborated more on the boundaries of real science and what is considered pseudoscience in the article. Finally, I agree that careful investigation should be carried out before considering one theory true and another theory false.
2. Most scientists consider denying climate change to be pseudoscience. This is because the bulk of scientific evidence sides with the theory of man made climate change, and the argument of non-man made climate change has little evidence in its favor. In terms of the article “it strays far from the scientific mainstream.” I agree with this classification, simply because a theory needs scientific backing to even be considered as a valid possibility, and right now that evidence does not exist. While this theory may be proven true in time, right now it is simply pseudoscience.
Kerstein, Arin
1. I generally agree with Shermer's criteria for separating science from pseudoscience because I feel that it is extremely practical. However, as he mentioned applying a "definition" to certain social sciences such as economics, I became unsure of my ability to completely agree with him. As various social sciences would not fall under Shermer's classification of a science, they would not be looked at as having influence or worth of study. I think it all falls into another linguistic problem between the line separating science and social sciences, just as the original problem of a definition developed of the differences between science and pseudoscience. Definitions must be set.
2. Astrology is considered a pseudoscience because there is no basis for the stars and planets affecting a person. Next, in assuming that astrology does in fact work, there are so many stars and planets that are unaccounted for in the study. Astrology is incoherent with other scientific theories, is difficult to falsify, and is not easily broken down into smaller parts. I completely agree with this viewpoint of astrology as a pseudoscience because it is extremely difficult to prove any of the opinions as they are based off of planets affecting the association between times and individual's experiences. Another reason why I agree with this is because an aspect of astrology could be psychological. As people are told from a young age that they will develop certain characteristics based on their horoscopes, they might actually start to do so based on the assumption that they will.
Knez, Natalie
1. In theory, the idea of separating science and pseudoscience is practical. The black and white distinction provided in this article makes sense on paper. It is also generally supported by what we have learned growing up as we are given technical definitions and examples of the scientific theory. I think the issue here is not creating a clear distinction between science and pseudoscience, it's the idea that pseudoscience generally thought of as negative. Clearly society benefits from many forms of "pseudoscience". If all forms of science that are not falsifiable had ceased upon the realization that discoveries could not be proven, we'd lack much of the speculation we have today. The bottom line here is that there is no definition; the best definition of the distinction between science and pseudoscience is arbitrary.
2. Attempting to categorize between pseudoscience and science proves how arbitrary the definition is. Society contains mixed views of what is considered arbitrary. For example, many would consider acupuncture pseudoscience. It clearly fits the definition of being non-falsifiable, and is on the far left of the pseudoscience spectrum. However, that is not to say that many do not swear by it. The reason we cannot distinguish between the two, is due to theories such as global warming. Though there is data to support the claim, it is again, non-falsifiable. So what distinguishes the theory of global warming and acupuncture? Again, it's arbitrary.
Kriska, Jeremy
1. I disagree with the author's criteron for psuedoscience. The author explains that if it is not useful, so basically nothing new or helpful can come out of it, it is psuedoscience. The reason I disagree with this is because of some things that I do believe to be psuedoscience on my own criteron. My idea of a psuedoscience is similar to one of the ideas mentioned near the beginning of the arguement. Something that can't be proven correct or incorrect should be a psuedoscience. That does not mean they are not useful. So even if some of the things I think a psuedosience are match up with the author's idea of a pseudoscience, I still think that overall his ideas are incorrect. The psuedoscince I will answer question #2 with is useful, yet you can't prove whether it works or not.
2. I think that a form of alternative medicine called the "healing touch" is a psuedoscince. I think there are several possibilities for what exactly this could be. People claim to feel the energies within other people by waving their hands over different parts of the patients body. They then procede to insert their own energy into patient and then supposdely healing them. I think this is a psuedoscience because I think it is possible this might true, or on the other hand, not science at all because the "doctor" is just tricking the patient with suggestion. On the other hand, people may consider this a science all in itself if someone were to use the power of suggestion to heal another. This would be considered a psuedoscience if you look at it with the view of it being unfalsifiable, yet, it is extremely useful because on some patients the results are very effective.
Matlin, Ethan
1. I agree that science should be more useful, but disagree with the distinction the author gives between pseudoscience and science. I also disagree with him on the importance of creating a clear, bright line between pseudoscience and science. I think more important than creating a clear line, is going through each fact, theory, hypothesis, etc. and determining which are unimportant, unproven, or don't make sense and which are important, have facts to back them up, and make sense. In everything, there is a grey area in which it is hard to distinguish things. By dividing findings into two categories and not allowing any room in the middle, one is removing a third category. This category is the one in which findings that are reasonable go in, even if they are borderline. Things in this middle category are still useful. For example, take alternative medicine. While for the most part unproven, some claim that it has been able to help them; even if it is only a placebo effect, it has still improved many peoples lives. But if we are required to sort it into complete pseudoscience or complete science, it won't fit or benefit anyone. As science, there is the danger that the public will put too much stock in it and depend on it in life-threatening situations in which it cannot help. But as pseudoscience, nobody will use it and instead will put even greater stress on our healthcare system.
2. An example of pseudoscience is the theory that aliens came to Earth long ago and interacted with ancient peoples. There is some support that people find such as the Nazca lines; massive construction projects like the Pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge, and Puma Punku that supporters of the theory say would have been impossible to build with only the technology of the time; and ancient literature and art that supposedly depict representations of UFOs, aliens, or space. But the theory definitely isn't falsifiable; there is no evidence or records from the time that would say definitively if they came into contact or not with aliens. It isn't helpful or pragmatic either. Knowing aliens came and communicated with our ancestors doesn't help us today, barely helps us understand our world/history better, and doesn't help us invent anything new. Also, the evidence for alien contact in ancient times is quite poor and the happening could be explained easily in other ways. I agree that it is pseudoscience.
Muldoon, Tommy
1. I am split between several parts of the article. Early on, the author writes about falsifiability and how some things may never be proven false or true just because they are beyond experimental bounds (searching all the planets for life is next to impossible). I would have to agree that we should never label those nonfalsifiables as a pseudoscience, and they should be unchallenged ideas so not as to inhibit progress in that area. I would have to disagree on his following idea that creationism shouldn't be a science for the same reason that it is nonfalsifiable. There is no solid evidence a creator exists or doesn't exist and therefore shouldn't be outright denied. But that also means that the theory of evolution shouldn't be discredited, the two will somehow have to coexist until one is proven true without doubt. As for his other ideas on classification, I'd have to agree that must either extend previous findings or create new lines of research, yet I disagree that the idea must be accepted or studied by other scientific research programs. Before such programs were invented, people had to work out problems by themselves. Just because they had no other scientists studying their ideas doesn't make it a pseudoscience but another hypothesis. Overall however, I believe that very little can be classified as pseudoscience as humans still know very little about how the universe works.
2. An example of pseudoscience is the Flat Earth model. Those who believe in this idea believe that earth is flat and that gravity comes from the earth's constant acceleration upwards. This is a pseudoscience because it has direct, visible proof that the Earth is round. The spherical planet idea has been around since Aristotle and has had much proof denying the Flat Earth idea. Examples are Columbus' exploration and Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (never fell off the edge) and pictures from space of the planet. Since I believe an idea can only be a pseudoscience if it has definitive evidence against it while it also directly counters other proven scientific knowledge, the Flat Earth model can't be true and is therefore a pseudoscience
Newman, Daniel
1. I have mixed feelings as to whether or not I agree with the thesis of this article. I think that i agree with the main point that the article makes but the means to determine what is an what is not science often became difficult to interpret in several cases. The way the article presents to decide if something is pseudoscience or not, is the "usefulness" of a theory. This concept can become fuzzy around the edges for two main reason. First, the viability of an idea is always relative. There is no one person who says that an idea is or is not beneficial or useful to society. Different part of theories and ideas presented in pseudoscience can often be useful in everyday life. Second, it is very difficult to speculated on the usefulness of concepts in the future. An idea that may appear to be pseudoscience now, may become a core scientific principal in years to come. However, when you offer the "non-falsifiable" idea, I think the lines begin to blur between pseudoscience and science even further. I think there are host of non-falsifiable ideas that could be considered science. The concept of anthropogenic climate change is definitely science in my book, even though it is technically a non-falsifiable theory. Overall, it can be very difficult to determine what is classified as science or pseudoscience, but I think the benefit the idea has on society on a whole is the most objective way to evaluate what can be considered science or not.
2. The idea of perpetual motion, or "free energy" is widely recognized as pseudoscience. This is a machine that outputs work without the input of any energy. This is considered pseudoscience because the concept of perpetual motion breaks the laws of thermodynamics. It is almost unanimously accepted that a machine cannot perpetually function without an outside source of energy. Consensus is that in a close environment, or one that does not receive energy, perpetual motion is impossible. The machine would theoretically produce "free energy", which is energy extracted from an equilibrium system. This is also considered impossible by the laws of thermodynamics. An interesting debate ensues when you consider "zero point energy". But upon further inspection, zero point energy is not in fact free energy, but energy obtained from fluctuations in ground state energy, having to do a lot with confusing quantum mechanics and wave interaction.
Niemann, Josef
1) I have mixed feeling whether I agree with this article. I agree with the definition that pseudoscience does not contribute anything to scientists, produce new lines of research, or influencing hypothesis or models. Although I agree with the definition, it is still extremely vague because anyone can argue that what he or she is trying to do is contributing to other forms of sciences. The definition also states that science must produce other lines of research. This is partially not true because pseudoscience has its own fields of research as well. Also, the main conclusion of this article that i find is that there is no fine line between actual science and pseudoscience, which basically means unless the scientist himself describes his work as pseudoscience he can claim it is actually science.
2) One example of pseudoscience is religion. It follows the definition of what is pseudoscience because it doesn't influence any other scientific theories and also doesn't seem to make new research methods as well. It can’t be proved or disproved by another means in science as well. Religious beliefs sometimes contradict scientific studies that are agreed upon with other studies, this further proves that it is a pseudoscience.
Ray, Kevin
1. In general, I agree with the article's main point. "Science" that doesn't have any applications and that won't lead to new developements probably is pseudoscience. But classifying something as pseudoscience isn't black and white. What if a so-called pseudoscience suddendly becomes relevant because of new evidence or ideas? I think that in real life, people classify things as pseudoscience because they go against what's popular amongst scientists, not due to how useful something is. For example, a lot of people (including scientists) support the concept of the multiverse, but the existance of the multiverse is neither falsifiable nor will it ever have an effect on people.
2. The 2012 apocalypse is a pseudoscience because it has little to no evidence supporting it and there haven't been experiments conducted using the scientific method to prove or disprove it. Since there are many different theories for how the planet could be destroyed, it's not really possible to disprove the 2012 apocalypse. So, by Popper's definition, 2012 is a pseusoscientific claim. And by the article's criteria, 2012 research is pseodoscientific because no real experiments have been performed. I looked at the 2012 apocalypse's official website and found an interview with a so-called scientist here, and if you read it you can tell how ridiculous the claims made are. The things that the pseudoscientist says are just made up, and they're totally untrue. For example, the article mentions how the heart's magnetic interaction with the earth's field causes feelings and how this has been a revolutionary change in "our science". That's a pure lie, and I don't understand why anyone would spread rumors using absurdly false information like that.
Simone, Josh
1. After reading this article, I would have to agree with the scientists that disregard pseudoscience. We live in an age where you must prove something by fact, or it is not true and pseudoscience completely disregards that. I believe pseudoscience is made up and people who believe in pseudoscience over real science are either trying to rip people off to make money or are just completely oblivious to everything science has done and proven for the entire human race. However, there are certain subjects such as E.T's where even though there is no evidence they exist, you still believe that there is a very likely chance they are out there on some planet.
2. I think an example of pseudoscience would be the belief that a higher being created the universe and everything in it. People are taught to believe that a god created the heaven and the starts, but there is no evidence to prove this whatsoever. People say there must be a higher being that created everything because how could everything be the exact way it is with such harmony in nature, but science has proven so much that it is hard to deny that there really was no higher being that created the universe. Believing in pseudoscience relies on your faith and what you are willing to believe.
Steinberg, Ross
1. I agree with the main idea in the article that if an idea is not falsifiable, it cannot be considered science. The article raises an interesting point when it brings up string theory and how it is not falsifiable; to this, I would like to contend that ideas such as string theory, though they cannot be science due to their inability to be proven false, are not per se pseudoscience. They fall into more of a category which is an amalgam of science and philosophy. I disagree, however, when it says that pseudoscience tends not to revolutionize fields. Freud, who was mentioned in the article as a pseudo-scientist, was the father of modern psychiatry, which started out based upon his pseudoscience.
2. One great example of pseudoscience is the Power Balance arm bands. These bands are supposed to improve the balance and performance of athletes with a holographic field. Many athletes wear this armband and feel that it helps them athletically. (This is probably the placebo affect at work.) Many independent scientists claim, however, that the armbands are just a fraud. For now, there is much controversy over these bands and thus the technology behind them can be considered a pseudoscience, although in a few years I feel that the technology may be considered a non-science altogether (which is a great example of how public perception changes).
Wagner, Jonny
1. After reading this article, I have mixed feelings of the points about what the difference between pseudoscience and actual scienece. Although I disagree with some of the points made by the article, I think the author did a good job depicting the difference between science and psuedoscience. Even though psuedoscience may not be considered to be "correct science", I believe that scientists should still consider those theories. Because, what we consider science now was considered to be the equivalent of pseudo science in the time of Galileo. Also, some pseudoscientific theories could be the answer to some scientific wonders that have been yet to be solved. As for the criteria distinguishing science and pseudoscience, I think that it is somewhat based off of personal judgement and going back to my earlier points, can change based off of what people believe. In conclusion, distinguishing psuedoscience and science is something that is easilly changeable and based off of personal judgement.
2. One example of psuedoscience could be the idea of having a past life or lives. Many religions like hinduism, believe in reincarnation. Although many people believe an reincarnation, there is no proven data supporting that people have previously lived as a different person or living being. The only record of having reincarnated beings is people talking about having dreams of previous lives and claiming to have an "old soul". There is no data showing that people actually have lived in past lives, but it is not inconceivable that something like this could happen.
What is Pseudoscience?
Instructions
After reading the article I would like you to post your thoughts and comments to it here for us to read and discuss. I would like you to address the following items in your comments:
1. What is your general reaction to this article? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have questions or comments. Essentially, just react to the article.
2. Find an example of something that is considered pseudoscience and, using the article, explain as to why it is considered such by most people. Do you agree with this assessment?
Place your comments in the space below in alphabetical order (last name first) following the format shown with my example. Feel free to comment on other people's comments but just be sure to use a different color font and sign your name after your comment(s).
Billig, Marielle
1. People should definitely be aware of pseudoscience because often times, since it is masquerading as 'real' science, it can be very misleading. Legitimate science is based on testable hypotheses and repeatable outcomes. It drives scientists to make more discoveries because inconsistencies in results can lead to more questions, then hypotheses and etc. However, pseudoscience only deals with what people want to be true or speculate to be true.
2. The area of ghost hunting is a pseudoscience. The ghost hunters use all sorts of gadgets to try and communicate with or locate the spirits. However, there is no evidence that even if there was a ghost present that they would be giving off electro-magnetic radiation or creating bizarre changes in temperature as many in the field speculate. Nearly anything can be attributed to the presence of ghosts. Instead of investigating the ways their theories can be disprooved, only certain outcomes are persued and some information is disregarded or manipulated to conform to the hypothesis.
Blank, Andrew
1. Indeed, the general population should be aware of the distinctions that can be made between science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience can often be falsely advertised. Caveat emptor should definitely be employed because it can often be tough to tell what one is receiving. Since science is a set of methods aimed at testing hypotheses and building theories, it is progressive and is often open to new advances in its respective areas. However, pseudoscience tends to be reactionary in nature. It is highly unprogressive.
2. Intelligent design is a pseudoscience. It uses religious principles and doesn't use the scientific method to explain phenomena. It attempts to redefine science to allow for some sort of supernatural explanation. No one has observed any evidence that supports intelligent design while natural selection is thoroughly supported by solid evidence such as fossils.
Bondy, Matthew
1. I tended to agree with most of the claims made by the author of this article. Pseudoscience is a very interesting thing, but I’m still a little bit unclear about the how something goes from a pseudoscience to mainstream science. Tommy alluded to the Flat Earth. After all, things that are now readily accepted in the scientific community were in the past thought to be ludicrous notions. Some things, however, are blatantly pseudoscience and consumers should be well aware. Without preserving science as a rational thing, its practical applications become less impactful.
2. I was somewhat surprised that “alternative medicine”, acupuncture, etc. are so made fun of by scientists. It was listed in the article as an example of “pseudoscience”. It could be considered so because, say, Western medication is tested using the scientific method in a lab, whereas these holistic forms of healing are a combination of science, tradition, and sometimes less accepted data or just ideas. I have a bias because my mom works at what is arguably an “alternative medicine” place. The fact is, however, that people have been told by their more “real” doctors that nothing could be done, the patient then turned to alternative medicine, became healthier, and the “traditional” doctors had no explanation. This is not some fluke—this has happened many, many times—including cancer cases. Even alternative medicine experts would argue that this has a lot to do with the subconscious mind. I don’t have a side-by side study to prove whether or not alternative medicine is valid (or when it is valid), but my question is if alternative medicine works in some cases when Western medicine sometimes fails, why knock it so much, even if it’s not “proven” to the extent other treatments are? This is when I think people take the negative connotations of “pseudoscience” too far and miss the more practical point. And isn’t being practical what science should be about? (That’s debatable… just a thought.)
Center, Shoshi
1. Overall I agree with the article's "definition" of pseudoscience, and if ideas don't contribute anything to scientists, produce new lines of research, or influencing hypothesis or models, it is most likely pseudoscience. Many scientists don't believe in pseudoscience because it isn't based off of legitimate data. But in a way all science is just an individual's interpretation, and just like the Greeks used myths to explain the "unexplainable", people use pseudoscience to make sense of things that cannot be tested or proven with today's technology. As time goes on some pseudosciences may become science as technological advances allow testing of these ideas. But as of right now many of these ideas are the best way to explain the things that go on in our world, and as long as people have reason to make sense of these theories, they will be considered a part of the scientific world.
2. The Bermuda Triangle can be considered a pseudoscience because there have been a number of ship and aircraft disasters, as well as disappearances in the Bermuda-Puerto Rico-Florida region that occurred to a certain degree that stories began circulating about E.T. and paranormal encounters in that area. No one who has gone through the Bermuda Triangle and personally experienced anything out of the ordinary has never returned to verify it, but there are still many who believe in this phenomenon. And even if a person were to claim that he/she personally experienced something, we have no evidence to prove any of these claims, nor do we have a way of disproving them, thus making The Bermuda Triangle phenomenon unfalsifiable. In the end it all depends on what a person chooses to believe and what makes sense in their eyes, bringing up the idea once again that pseudoscience is just an person's own interpretation and judgment of what makes sense in the world.
Chin, Jeremy
1. I agree with the article to as certain degree. I totally agree that science should be useful and have a concrete basis on which a hypothesis is formed, but some pseudoscience lies on the edge. I also think that science is just the human interpretation of the world. We are finding answers to unexplainable events in nature. In the same way, pseudoscience is finding explanations for strange things. The only difference is, other scientists don't think they are legitimate because of the lack of facts or experimental data, but pseudoscience has the same basic concept of science. It's only a matter of time before we have the technology and resources to find out more about these pseudosciences and maybe even induct them into the field of actual science.
2. A great example of pseudoscience is paranormal hunting/research. For a long time now, "scientists" have gone searching for ghosts and paranormal energy by using strange and unconventional methods of science to find answers to these phenomena. This field is considered pseudoscience because almost every other scientist not in this field strongly opposes this idea. According to Popper, pseudoscience is not useful and doesn't contribute to further research in science. Moreover, these "discoveries" of supernatural beings can bring absolutely no further fields of research or interests. Most of these ghost hunts have been staged for entertainment, or just random hypothesis and coincidental closing of doors, sounds coming from the corner of the room, or strange voices coming from "ghosts" (really just hearing problems with the ghost hunters themselves). Lastly, ghost hunting has no real hypothesis or data to work off of. There is only the possibility of there being a paranormal being, and pseudoscientist are just trying to prove it, when really, there is no way to with the science we have today. We can conclude that ghost hunting is just a sham that pseudoscientists want to believe so they can excite people and prove other scientists wrong.
Coleman, Matt
1. Overall, I felt that this article made some strong points to demonstrate that pseudoscience needs to be useless in a way that no further scientific developments can result from it. However, it is nearly impossible to establish a boundary between science and pseudoscience. Sometimes discoveries originally thought to be pseudoscience can be either proved or disproved with the rapid growth of technological advancements. The determination of what category some discoveries fall in to is open to interpretation. Differentiating between science and pseudoscience will most likely never be completely agreed upon, but whether right or wrong, they both try to explain our universe.
2. An example of something considered to be pseudoscience by most people would be ufology, or the study of unidentified flying objects. No concrete data suggests that UFOs have landed on Earth. Many people have claimed to have seen them, and some think that they even have their own pictures of UFOs. But I, along with plenty of others, think that ufology is pseudoscience. There is no definitive evidence that proves any of the theories that suggest the existence of UFOs, and it is probable that stories of sightings are either scams or misidentification of a different object. Almost no information about UFOs has been concluded despite the fact that studies have been going on for countless years. There is always a chance that UFOs exist, but because the claims remain unproven, ufology falls into the category of pseudoscience. Area 51? (Dylan)
Crowe, Samantha
1. In general, I agree with the boundaries that Shermer sets for science and pseudoscience, trying to take personal beliefs out of the equation. However, it seems that no matter what the boundaries are set, people still have their own opinions. Like Popper wrote, ” No one in the history of the world has ever self-identified as a pseudoscientist.” Ghost hunters will still look for signs of paranormal activity, and acupuncturists will still continue their practice. And there are always gray areas. I do agree with Shermer that opinions shouldn’t be part of the decision; however there still needs to be a more concrete way to decide, maybe a law. However, that doesn’t mean that pseudoscience will always stay a pseudoscience. Scientists and pseudoscientists alike should research pseudoscience because maybe there is a truth that could lead to a better scientific community.
2. A huge topic of what is considered pseudoscience and has been researched a lot in the past century is acupuncture. Just the definition of acupuncture would have Shermer calling it a pseudoscience. Acupuncture came to be way back in ancient China; its use for propelling of qi was and is used to relieve pain and nausea. As an alternate form of medicine, it is based on old medicinal beliefs of China, unrelated to modern science. The benefits of acupuncture are often attributed to the placebo effect and bias. However people still continue the practice, and there are certain qualifications for acupuncturists for safety. As far as I can see, acupuncture is a pseudoscience, but there seems to be a lot research yet to be done. More research should be done not only to see if is there is truth to acupuncture but if there is anything to acupuncture, science or fraud. The WHO believes acupuncture helps several conditions. I'm not sure why. I think the body sends extra repair materials to the needle site which are then used in other places. I just found this, but it might not be true (Tommy) Always consider the source. The link you shared Tommy was written by acupuncture advocates making it difficult to know how much is science and how much is advertising. (M. Grdinic)
Ekenberg, Dylan
1. I agree with the articles main point, nothing can be fully tested to the point were everyone believes it true. A prime example of this is the argument of Fate vs. Free Will. Nothing can be tested at all to prove whether you control your life or it is already mapped out. But, people still jump on a side of fate vs. free will even though that it can't be proven to a point where one is true. This is what I think about pseudosciences, even though they can't be fully proven to a point where it is right of wrong, people still have their believes in whether it works or not.
2. An example of pseudoscience is people who are psychics, it has no real evidence that it is true, it usually has to do with con artists, and people have their views whether it works or not. In my opinion it is a scam to get your money. But, after looking online, people say that they have gotten results and things that they have foretold has come true. But, that comes to the point whether or not they are legit. People online are saying that there are real psychics but also I found a guide called, how to be a psychic and scam people out of there money. After reading over, they are trying to sell hope, and the main way they do it is get some inside information that they keep private and that they bring out and to think they are true to try and think that they saw something from the beyond that they wouldn't know.
Grdinic, Marcel
1. I believe that this article raises some interesting philosophical questions about the nature of science. Trying to determine what is and is not science really can be a tricky question. I like the falsifiable criteria suggested by Karl Popper and how if something is immune to being proven false than it most likely a pseudoscience. But there are problems with this approach as just because we can't prove it false now doesn't mean we will always be in that situation. However, some issues do seem to be intuitively unscientific now and forever.
2. Chiropractic medicine is one area of alternative medicine that is classified as a pseudoscience. This treatment approach was created by a grocery store owner in the late 1800s who claimed that all of the diseases of man are the result of misalignments and so-called subluxations in the spine. However, modern controlled experiments have shown that there is no basis to this theory and that in many cases chiropractors do much more harm than good. Most studies show that the only thing chiropractors can help with is a specific type of low back pain. But even here the chiropractic treatment was no more effective than those in a study who received massage therapy and even those who were just given an informational packet on stretching. Why people continue to spend large amounts of money on an unsubstantiated claim is confusing to me. I think the reason for this is that stories are spread about how chiropractic treatment worked well for one person, and other people jump on the bandwagon. A lot of alternitive medicines are probably just the placebo effect. (Kevin R.) Good point Kevin. This is actually a well documented phenomenon: the mere act of "laying hands" upon someone with pain leads them to believe that it is helping them. The placebo effect is important but it shouldn't be the only effect of a treatment. (M. Grdinic)
Homedi, Nadia
1. I generally do agree with the way pseudoscience and the way we can differentiate pseudoscience, non-science, and science, was explained in the article. The main idea that was conveyed from Shermer throughout the article and that i believe in strongly, is that it is incorrect to assume a hypothesis is true unless it can be tested and proved. This is why it is called a hypothesis. However, everyone will have their own opinions and try to find fault in theories. I think that most of his criteria for pseudoscience is correct, but once again: how can you set a definition for pseudoscience when it is unsure what the boundaries for pseudoscience actually are? The person who is trying to define it should be prepared to add or take away criteria because as science evolves, so do its definitions. Which brings up the question: can science and scientific terms ever be defined? I do not agree that all pseudoscience will not lead to new discoveries. Some pseudoscience may connect with history. In some cases, pseudoscience can help to connect events from the past and make present scientific situations more clear, such as the technological situation of the scientist when he/she were conducting their experiment, or why they did it that way. Their beliefs could have influenced their way of conducting experiments.
2. Religious belief is an example of pseudoscience. Religion cannot be proven through conducting experiments. This contradicts the idea that science is meant to test and prove theories. Religion is always changing, based on beliefs of certain people, and will never be agreed upon. Religion has become a worldwide conflict. Which is the same as pseudoscience where anything under this category cannot be agreed upon by scientists. Also, religion can confuse proven scientific theorems and concepts, which is why we don't incorporate it in public schools. Scientific theories must help research, help to improve the scientific community as a whole, and influence existing hypothesis. Religion does the opposite, which is why it isn't incorporated throughout science, yet categorized as pseudoscience.
Gruemmer, Nolan
1. I agreed for the most part with Shermer's classifications of science and pseudoscience. I very strongly agree with the "falsifiable" criteria, as when I think of examples of pseudoscience such as acupuncture and homeopathic medicine, it seems to apply. The possibility for science to be proven false and replaced is in fact the very basis of the scientific method, and necessary for building a concrete and accurate base of knowledge.
2. One example of pseudoscience is astrology, a belief system in a relationship between astronomical phenomenae and worldly events. Horoscopes are a part of astrology. As horoscopes are almost always supremely vague, they could pretty much always fit some way into a situation and are therefore impossible to be proven wrong (you could easily say they are meant to be this way). So astrology is not falsifiable. Astrology also lacking any meaningful relationship to other bases of knowledge, and conjures up relationships between arguably completely separate events without any scientific reasoning whatsoever.
Jancaus, Kathryn
1. I thought that Shermer’s criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience were reasonable. He introduces the idea that true science is a test of a hypothesis and changes current theories or creates new opportunities for research and discovery. I agree that pseudoscience usually doesn’t experimentally test a hypothesis, but I wondered about Shermer’s approach to one question: does the revolutionary new idea produce any new research or discoveries, or change a current theory? He stated that if the idea doesn’t do this, it is probably pseudoscience. Would Shermer say that an idea or discovery has to be new and revolutionary in order for it to be considered science? It would seem that if this was true, it wouldn’t be considered science if someone did an experiment and another person did the same experiment a hundred years later with the same results. I think that the point of this classification between science and pseudoscience is that all science was new at first, and if it caused new discoveries or changes of worldview once (and the results of the experiment don’t change) it can still be considered science in the future. This explains why many of the experiments we do in science class are still considered science even though we aren’t the first to do them. When they (or experiments like them) were first done, they led to new lines of study and changed people’s mindset. And for many of them, it can also be said that they lead us, as learners of scientific knowledge already gained by others, into discoveries and changes of perspective just like the first scientists to do them experienced.
2. An example of pseudoscience is the “study” of mythical creatures, what some people call cryptozoology. Some people claim that creatures like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and yetis exist, but the study of these creatures can be considered pseudoscience because it doesn’t use hypothesis and reasonable, evidence-based theories to foster new discoveries. Most people believe that there just isn’t enough evidence of creatures like this to produce useful scientific knowledge, as Shermer’s article would put it. I agree that the study of mythical creatures is pseudoscience because it hasn’t led to scientific discoveries or credible research.
Kang, Edward
1. I agree that many things can be considered "pseudoscience". We don't know what we know until we can prove it. The Greeks believed in many myths which at the time were as factual as the speed of light, and even that has been broken by neutrinos apparently. If anyone can be proven wrong, nobody is completely right. It takes time for technology and men to be able to prove or disprove things, Science that has remained true for a long time can be considered "science", as there would have to be a very strongly supported way to prove a theory pertaining to biology or some other well-understood topic.
2. ESP is considered pseudoscience because nobody can prove that someone can sense things with their mind. People believe it because the ESP "users" are usually very good at playing tricks and pretending to recieve information. There are theories and weird people that can do weird things, but citing Popper, "
If a community of scientists actively adopts a new idea and if that idea then spreads through the field and is incorporated into research that produces useful knowledge reflected in presentations, publications, and especially new lines of inquiry and research, chances are it is science.". This clearly shows that this is not a science as it is dismissed by nearly all scientists, as there is not a solid basis by which anyone can test this hypothesis that people can "receive" information. It doesn't even make sense, as mutants only exists in comics.
Kaplan, Alex
1. I generally agree with Shermer’s ideas on pseudoscience. Distinguishing between pseudoscience and proven scientific theories is definitely necessary, especially for high-school chemistry students. I do not believe, however, that Shermer accurately depicted the grounds for determining “pseudoscience.” Just because a theory has not yet been proven (such as alternative medicine), does not mean that it is actually pseudoscience. This issue was touched on in the article, but I wish that Shermer had elaborated more on the boundaries of real science and what is considered pseudoscience in the article. Finally, I agree that careful investigation should be carried out before considering one theory true and another theory false.
2. Most scientists consider denying climate change to be pseudoscience. This is because the bulk of scientific evidence sides with the theory of man made climate change, and the argument of non-man made climate change has little evidence in its favor. In terms of the article “it strays far from the scientific mainstream.” I agree with this classification, simply because a theory needs scientific backing to even be considered as a valid possibility, and right now that evidence does not exist. While this theory may be proven true in time, right now it is simply pseudoscience.
Kerstein, Arin
1. I generally agree with Shermer's criteria for separating science from pseudoscience because I feel that it is extremely practical. However, as he mentioned applying a "definition" to certain social sciences such as economics, I became unsure of my ability to completely agree with him. As various social sciences would not fall under Shermer's classification of a science, they would not be looked at as having influence or worth of study. I think it all falls into another linguistic problem between the line separating science and social sciences, just as the original problem of a definition developed of the differences between science and pseudoscience. Definitions must be set.
2. Astrology is considered a pseudoscience because there is no basis for the stars and planets affecting a person. Next, in assuming that astrology does in fact work, there are so many stars and planets that are unaccounted for in the study. Astrology is incoherent with other scientific theories, is difficult to falsify, and is not easily broken down into smaller parts. I completely agree with this viewpoint of astrology as a pseudoscience because it is extremely difficult to prove any of the opinions as they are based off of planets affecting the association between times and individual's experiences. Another reason why I agree with this is because an aspect of astrology could be psychological. As people are told from a young age that they will develop certain characteristics based on their horoscopes, they might actually start to do so based on the assumption that they will.
Knez, Natalie
1. In theory, the idea of separating science and pseudoscience is practical. The black and white distinction provided in this article makes sense on paper. It is also generally supported by what we have learned growing up as we are given technical definitions and examples of the scientific theory. I think the issue here is not creating a clear distinction between science and pseudoscience, it's the idea that pseudoscience generally thought of as negative. Clearly society benefits from many forms of "pseudoscience". If all forms of science that are not falsifiable had ceased upon the realization that discoveries could not be proven, we'd lack much of the speculation we have today. The bottom line here is that there is no definition; the best definition of the distinction between science and pseudoscience is arbitrary.
2. Attempting to categorize between pseudoscience and science proves how arbitrary the definition is. Society contains mixed views of what is considered arbitrary. For example, many would consider acupuncture pseudoscience. It clearly fits the definition of being non-falsifiable, and is on the far left of the pseudoscience spectrum. However, that is not to say that many do not swear by it. The reason we cannot distinguish between the two, is due to theories such as global warming. Though there is data to support the claim, it is again, non-falsifiable. So what distinguishes the theory of global warming and acupuncture? Again, it's arbitrary.
Kriska, Jeremy
1. I disagree with the author's criteron for psuedoscience. The author explains that if it is not useful, so basically nothing new or helpful can come out of it, it is psuedoscience. The reason I disagree with this is because of some things that I do believe to be psuedoscience on my own criteron. My idea of a psuedoscience is similar to one of the ideas mentioned near the beginning of the arguement. Something that can't be proven correct or incorrect should be a psuedoscience. That does not mean they are not useful. So even if some of the things I think a psuedosience are match up with the author's idea of a pseudoscience, I still think that overall his ideas are incorrect. The psuedoscince I will answer question #2 with is useful, yet you can't prove whether it works or not.
2. I think that a form of alternative medicine called the "healing touch" is a psuedoscince. I think there are several possibilities for what exactly this could be. People claim to feel the energies within other people by waving their hands over different parts of the patients body. They then procede to insert their own energy into patient and then supposdely healing them. I think this is a psuedoscience because I think it is possible this might true, or on the other hand, not science at all because the "doctor" is just tricking the patient with suggestion. On the other hand, people may consider this a science all in itself if someone were to use the power of suggestion to heal another. This would be considered a psuedoscience if you look at it with the view of it being unfalsifiable, yet, it is extremely useful because on some patients the results are very effective.
Matlin, Ethan
1. I agree that science should be more useful, but disagree with the distinction the author gives between pseudoscience and science. I also disagree with him on the importance of creating a clear, bright line between pseudoscience and science. I think more important than creating a clear line, is going through each fact, theory, hypothesis, etc. and determining which are unimportant, unproven, or don't make sense and which are important, have facts to back them up, and make sense. In everything, there is a grey area in which it is hard to distinguish things. By dividing findings into two categories and not allowing any room in the middle, one is removing a third category. This category is the one in which findings that are reasonable go in, even if they are borderline. Things in this middle category are still useful. For example, take alternative medicine. While for the most part unproven, some claim that it has been able to help them; even if it is only a placebo effect, it has still improved many peoples lives. But if we are required to sort it into complete pseudoscience or complete science, it won't fit or benefit anyone. As science, there is the danger that the public will put too much stock in it and depend on it in life-threatening situations in which it cannot help. But as pseudoscience, nobody will use it and instead will put even greater stress on our healthcare system.
2. An example of pseudoscience is the theory that aliens came to Earth long ago and interacted with ancient peoples. There is some support that people find such as the Nazca lines; massive construction projects like the Pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge, and Puma Punku that supporters of the theory say would have been impossible to build with only the technology of the time; and ancient literature and art that supposedly depict representations of UFOs, aliens, or space. But the theory definitely isn't falsifiable; there is no evidence or records from the time that would say definitively if they came into contact or not with aliens. It isn't helpful or pragmatic either. Knowing aliens came and communicated with our ancestors doesn't help us today, barely helps us understand our world/history better, and doesn't help us invent anything new. Also, the evidence for alien contact in ancient times is quite poor and the happening could be explained easily in other ways. I agree that it is pseudoscience.
Muldoon, Tommy
1. I am split between several parts of the article. Early on, the author writes about falsifiability and how some things may never be proven false or true just because they are beyond experimental bounds (searching all the planets for life is next to impossible). I would have to agree that we should never label those nonfalsifiables as a pseudoscience, and they should be unchallenged ideas so not as to inhibit progress in that area. I would have to disagree on his following idea that creationism shouldn't be a science for the same reason that it is nonfalsifiable. There is no solid evidence a creator exists or doesn't exist and therefore shouldn't be outright denied. But that also means that the theory of evolution shouldn't be discredited, the two will somehow have to coexist until one is proven true without doubt. As for his other ideas on classification, I'd have to agree that must either extend previous findings or create new lines of research, yet I disagree that the idea must be accepted or studied by other scientific research programs. Before such programs were invented, people had to work out problems by themselves. Just because they had no other scientists studying their ideas doesn't make it a pseudoscience but another hypothesis. Overall however, I believe that very little can be classified as pseudoscience as humans still know very little about how the universe works.
2. An example of pseudoscience is the Flat Earth model. Those who believe in this idea believe that earth is flat and that gravity comes from the earth's constant acceleration upwards. This is a pseudoscience because it has direct, visible proof that the Earth is round. The spherical planet idea has been around since Aristotle and has had much proof denying the Flat Earth idea. Examples are Columbus' exploration and Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (never fell off the edge) and pictures from space of the planet. Since I believe an idea can only be a pseudoscience if it has definitive evidence against it while it also directly counters other proven scientific knowledge, the Flat Earth model can't be true and is therefore a pseudoscience
Newman, Daniel
1. I have mixed feelings as to whether or not I agree with the thesis of this article. I think that i agree with the main point that the article makes but the means to determine what is an what is not science often became difficult to interpret in several cases. The way the article presents to decide if something is pseudoscience or not, is the "usefulness" of a theory. This concept can become fuzzy around the edges for two main reason. First, the viability of an idea is always relative. There is no one person who says that an idea is or is not beneficial or useful to society. Different part of theories and ideas presented in pseudoscience can often be useful in everyday life. Second, it is very difficult to speculated on the usefulness of concepts in the future. An idea that may appear to be pseudoscience now, may become a core scientific principal in years to come. However, when you offer the "non-falsifiable" idea, I think the lines begin to blur between pseudoscience and science even further. I think there are host of non-falsifiable ideas that could be considered science. The concept of anthropogenic climate change is definitely science in my book, even though it is technically a non-falsifiable theory. Overall, it can be very difficult to determine what is classified as science or pseudoscience, but I think the benefit the idea has on society on a whole is the most objective way to evaluate what can be considered science or not.
2. The idea of perpetual motion, or "free energy" is widely recognized as pseudoscience. This is a machine that outputs work without the input of any energy. This is considered pseudoscience because the concept of perpetual motion breaks the laws of thermodynamics. It is almost unanimously accepted that a machine cannot perpetually function without an outside source of energy. Consensus is that in a close environment, or one that does not receive energy, perpetual motion is impossible. The machine would theoretically produce "free energy", which is energy extracted from an equilibrium system. This is also considered impossible by the laws of thermodynamics. An interesting debate ensues when you consider "zero point energy". But upon further inspection, zero point energy is not in fact free energy, but energy obtained from fluctuations in ground state energy, having to do a lot with confusing quantum mechanics and wave interaction.
Niemann, Josef
1) I have mixed feeling whether I agree with this article. I agree with the definition that pseudoscience does not contribute anything to scientists, produce new lines of research, or influencing hypothesis or models. Although I agree with the definition, it is still extremely vague because anyone can argue that what he or she is trying to do is contributing to other forms of sciences. The definition also states that science must produce other lines of research. This is partially not true because pseudoscience has its own fields of research as well. Also, the main conclusion of this article that i find is that there is no fine line between actual science and pseudoscience, which basically means unless the scientist himself describes his work as pseudoscience he can claim it is actually science.
2) One example of pseudoscience is religion. It follows the definition of what is pseudoscience because it doesn't influence any other scientific theories and also doesn't seem to make new research methods as well. It can’t be proved or disproved by another means in science as well. Religious beliefs sometimes contradict scientific studies that are agreed upon with other studies, this further proves that it is a pseudoscience.
Ray, Kevin
1. In general, I agree with the article's main point. "Science" that doesn't have any applications and that won't lead to new developements probably is pseudoscience. But classifying something as pseudoscience isn't black and white. What if a so-called pseudoscience suddendly becomes relevant because of new evidence or ideas? I think that in real life, people classify things as pseudoscience because they go against what's popular amongst scientists, not due to how useful something is. For example, a lot of people (including scientists) support the concept of the multiverse, but the existance of the multiverse is neither falsifiable nor will it ever have an effect on people.
2. The 2012 apocalypse is a pseudoscience because it has little to no evidence supporting it and there haven't been experiments conducted using the scientific method to prove or disprove it. Since there are many different theories for how the planet could be destroyed, it's not really possible to disprove the 2012 apocalypse. So, by Popper's definition, 2012 is a pseusoscientific claim. And by the article's criteria, 2012 research is pseodoscientific because no real experiments have been performed. I looked at the 2012 apocalypse's official website and found an interview with a so-called scientist here, and if you read it you can tell how ridiculous the claims made are. The things that the pseudoscientist says are just made up, and they're totally untrue. For example, the article mentions how the heart's magnetic interaction with the earth's field causes feelings and how this has been a revolutionary change in "our science". That's a pure lie, and I don't understand why anyone would spread rumors using absurdly false information like that.
Simone, Josh
1. After reading this article, I would have to agree with the scientists that disregard pseudoscience. We live in an age where you must prove something by fact, or it is not true and pseudoscience completely disregards that. I believe pseudoscience is made up and people who believe in pseudoscience over real science are either trying to rip people off to make money or are just completely oblivious to everything science has done and proven for the entire human race. However, there are certain subjects such as E.T's where even though there is no evidence they exist, you still believe that there is a very likely chance they are out there on some planet.
2. I think an example of pseudoscience would be the belief that a higher being created the universe and everything in it. People are taught to believe that a god created the heaven and the starts, but there is no evidence to prove this whatsoever. People say there must be a higher being that created everything because how could everything be the exact way it is with such harmony in nature, but science has proven so much that it is hard to deny that there really was no higher being that created the universe. Believing in pseudoscience relies on your faith and what you are willing to believe.
Steinberg, Ross
1. I agree with the main idea in the article that if an idea is not falsifiable, it cannot be considered science. The article raises an interesting point when it brings up string theory and how it is not falsifiable; to this, I would like to contend that ideas such as string theory, though they cannot be science due to their inability to be proven false, are not per se pseudoscience. They fall into more of a category which is an amalgam of science and philosophy. I disagree, however, when it says that pseudoscience tends not to revolutionize fields. Freud, who was mentioned in the article as a pseudo-scientist, was the father of modern psychiatry, which started out based upon his pseudoscience.
2. One great example of pseudoscience is the Power Balance arm bands. These bands are supposed to improve the balance and performance of athletes with a holographic field. Many athletes wear this armband and feel that it helps them athletically. (This is probably the placebo affect at work.) Many independent scientists claim, however, that the armbands are just a fraud. For now, there is much controversy over these bands and thus the technology behind them can be considered a pseudoscience, although in a few years I feel that the technology may be considered a non-science altogether (which is a great example of how public perception changes).
Wagner, Jonny
1. After reading this article, I have mixed feelings of the points about what the difference between pseudoscience and actual scienece. Although I disagree with some of the points made by the article, I think the author did a good job depicting the difference between science and psuedoscience. Even though psuedoscience may not be considered to be "correct science", I believe that scientists should still consider those theories. Because, what we consider science now was considered to be the equivalent of pseudo science in the time of Galileo. Also, some pseudoscientific theories could be the answer to some scientific wonders that have been yet to be solved. As for the criteria distinguishing science and pseudoscience, I think that it is somewhat based off of personal judgement and going back to my earlier points, can change based off of what people believe. In conclusion, distinguishing psuedoscience and science is something that is easilly changeable and based off of personal judgement.
2. One example of psuedoscience could be the idea of having a past life or lives. Many religions like hinduism, believe in reincarnation. Although many people believe an reincarnation, there is no proven data supporting that people have previously lived as a different person or living being. The only record of having reincarnated beings is people talking about having dreams of previous lives and claiming to have an "old soul". There is no data showing that people actually have lived in past lives, but it is not inconceivable that something like this could happen.